Reign of Terror

Grace Picariello
February 25, 2017

Why the Reign of Terror cannot be Terrorism

It is hard to make an argument that an event with the term 'terror' in its name does not actually fit into our understanding of terrorism today. In 1792, after the functions of the monarchy are suspended by the legislature and the royal family is caught fleeing to Paris, King Louis the 16th is put on trial and convicted of conspiracy against the people. He is beheaded in 1793. Thus, begins the period in time known as the Reign of Terror. This time period between 1793 and 1870 was one ridden with mass executions and an overwhelming fear of government. The newly formed Committee on Public Safety was the group in charge of quick trials, and extensive killings of any suspected enemies of the French Revolution. While this was a horrible time for France that was traumatizing and morally wrong, it cannot be considered terrorism due to the fact that the actions were taken by the state and furthermore, the executions were technically legal. 

One of the most common quotes that has been discussed in class is the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is a typical case of that. While the Committee on Public Safety was completing horrific tasks, they also might have very well thought that they were helping France in the long run by taking the country closer to democracy and further from monarchy, which they thought to be oppressive. Under these circumstances, the mass executions that they were overseeing were a positive thing for them and many of the revolutionaries. In this sense, while it is easy to say that any type of mass murder is terrorism, it is important that we look at it from all angles and try to understand where the other side was coming from. It could definitely be claimed that they were trying to achieve a goal, not simply just attempting to inflict as much violence and terror as possible. Their goal could also be considered one of good intentions as they were trying to form a less oppressive democracy for the people of France. 

The most important thing to remember when assessing if the Reign of Terror was terrorism or not, is that all of the actions that were taken were happening within the power of the state/government of the time. While the acts were not necessarily right, they were also not illegal. In the United States State Department definition of terrorism, in order for attacks to be considered acts of terror they must be taken against civilian targets by non-state groups or subnational groups/clandestine agents. It could reasonably be argued that the mass killings were against people who were openly against the revolution, and therefore not completely innocent and separated from the situation. Furthermore, the executions were being committed by the state itself, not a subnational group. 

In the end, the Reign of Terror did lead to France's construction of a functioning democratic government. They were able to overthrow the monarchy and form a much more inclusive governing body. However, this is not to say that the government in place in the mean time was one of morality and liberty. It was quite the opposite, actually. Nevertheless, since the violence was committed by the governing body and not a subnational group, within the limits of the law, and not completely against innocent civilians, the period cannot be considered one of terror. Furthermore, the intentions of the state were good and their goal was not to simply commit mass violence, separating them from other terrorist groups that we see today.